Thanks for reaching out!
I think we have slightly different criteria for what constitutes "credit". For example, links are present here and there, but no name. The only place that truly matters (more than the others, at least) is within the app - most people will get the app without reading the forum thread, without visiting the GitHub repository, and certainly without reading the source code. Even then, I feel a link to the thread or similar would be preferable - which you did do in some of the documentation, but not within the app.
You make a valid point that most people will only look at what's in the app, and will generally not read the App Store description or my forum thread. Like I said, this was more down to the technical implementation of that view, rather than any attempt to mask the authorship of the script. I will make it a priority to include a link to this thread in addition to your name within the app, and to include the names of the script authors to all the places where I currently have just links to forum threads. Hopefully you feel this would be sufficient attribution, but please let me know if you disagree.
I do realize I haven't formally licensed Jitai, but... you know, that means it falls under normal copyright, etc.
The link to the script on OpenUserJS (https://openuserjs.org/scripts/obskyr/Jitai
) indicates the licence is MIT. If it wasn't your intent to select this licence, then you may want to update that particular site. When you have selected a licence, please let me know and I will ensure I am fully-compliant (or, where I can't or won't comply, cease distribution of the modified script).
I will also do the same for the other scripts I've included. Admittedly, I have been lax on this point as I'm not including the licence details for any of the user scripts on my acknowledgements view like I do for the third-party libraries I'm using.
Despite that, I suppose I just would've appreciated hearing about it.
A fair point, which I will take on board for any future scripts I may include in the app.
I didn't call it plagiarism, and wouldn't either, but it did give me a bit of an iffy feeling. As mentioned, however, I'm mostly just happy you decided to include it. Thanks for that!
Your reply to Plantron ("[l]uckily it wasn't entirely plagiarism") gives a very strong implication to me, through the inclusion of the word "entirely", that you deemed it a form of plagiarism.
The public airing of this grievance has given me a bit of an "iffy feeling" and I wish you'd contacted me privately to resolve this. A contact email is not only on my app's forum thread (which as I write this is still on the first page of this forum) but there is also a contact link on the same settings page where you can enable the script in the app. You could have also contacted me through GitHub, since that's where I assume you saw the source for the modified version of the script in order to belittle the scope of my (admittedly minor) changes.
As for the wording, I'd definitely expect it to be something more along the lines of simply "by @obskyr". Of course, you did make a couple of modifications, but... they're fairly minor, and to me "original script by[...]" says it's a redone version of it.
I will make this change as a matter of priority. The wording wasn't intended to give the impression your script was merely an inspiration and I had rewritten it, and I am happy to clear up any confusion on that front. If you feel that way, you're likely not alone. I will drop the word "original".